A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING SECTION 1-7-95 SO AS TO PROVIDE GUIDELINES FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS BROUGHT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE NAME OF THE STATE; BY ADDING SECTION 39-5-55 SO AS TO PROVIDE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH THE REMEDY OF DISGORGEMENT; AND BY ADDING SECTION 39-5-85 SO AS TO PROVIDE PRIVILEGE TO CERTAIN MATERIALS PREPARED OR DRAFTED BY OR FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES.
Summary
H4255 is a civil litigation reform bill focused on the South Carolina Attorney General’s authority when bringing or defending actions in the name of the State. It would add a new code section stating that, when the Attorney General acts under common law, the state constitution, or other law, the Attorney General is acting in the public interest of South Carolina rather than as counsel for any specific state department, agency, board, or branch of government. The bill also clarifies that those entities are not parties to such actions and that their documents or electronically stored information are not deemed to be in the Attorney General’s possession, custody, or control, while preserving the Attorney General’s ability to represent a state entity in a proprietary capacity.
The bill further amends the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices/consumer protection chapter to expressly authorize disgorgement as a remedy in actions brought under that article. In addition, it creates a privilege for materials prepared, drafted, or shared with the Attorney General or staff for law-enforcement purposes during investigations of potential violations, and states that the privilege continues after the investigation ends, whether through litigation, settlement, or other resolution. The act would take effect upon gubernatorial approval.
Impact
If enacted, H4255 would alter state law governing the Attorney General’s litigation posture and discovery obligations, making clear that the office is not automatically the legal representative of other state agencies in state-initiated actions. It would also expand available remedies in consumer-protection style enforcement actions by expressly allowing disgorgement, and it would shield certain investigative materials from disclosure by recognizing a continuing privilege for Attorney General law-enforcement work product and related communications.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a pro-enforcement and pro-AG authority bill, with no recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials. The caption, Civil Litigation Reform, suggests an intent to clarify and strengthen the Attorney General’s tools in state enforcement actions. Because no transcripts or vote history are available, there is no documented public split or recorded support/opposition in the supplied record.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s expansion of Attorney General power and the limits it places on access to state records and agency involvement. Critics could object that the bill narrows discovery by declaring state agencies and boards are not parties to certain AG actions and by creating a broad privilege for investigative materials. Supporters would likely emphasize that the bill clarifies the Attorney General’s independent public-interest role, prevents confusion over representation of state entities, and gives the office stronger remedies and confidentiality protections in enforcement cases.